Arthur Schopenhauer
ERISTICS, OR THE ART OF WINTING DISPUTES
I. Eristic
The words "logic" and "dialectics" were already used in antiquity and were considered synonymous, although the verb to discuss, think, think and talk are two completely different concepts.
A similar use of these expressions existed in the Middle Ages and even occurs sometimes to this day. In recent times, the word "dialectic" has been used by some scientists, especially Kant, in a negative sense, who called it "a sophistical way of debating" and for this reason put the word "logic" above, as a more innocent expression of this concept. As a matter of fact, these two words have exactly the same meaning, so in recent years they have again often been looked at as synonymous expressions.
This state of affairs somewhat confuses me and does not give me the opportunity, as I would like, to shade and separate these two sciences: logic and dialectics. In my opinion, logic can be given the following definition: “the science of the laws of thought or the ways of the mind” (from the verb to ponder, discuss, which in turn comes from the word mind or word); dialectics, using this expression in the modern sense, is "the art of debating and arguing or talking." Every conversation is based on bringing facts or views, that is, once it is historical, another time it analyzes or considers something. Hence it is obvious that the subject of logic is given in its entirety. a priori, without any admixture of anything historical, or that the field of this science includes the general laws of thinking, to which every mind obeys at the moment when it is left to itself, when nothing interferes with it, therefore, during the period of solitary thinking of a rational being, which nothing is misleading. On the contrary, dialectics considers the simultaneous activity of two rational beings who think at the same time, from which, of course, a dispute arises, that is, a spiritual struggle. Both beings have pure reason, and therefore they should agree with each other; in fact, there is no such agreement, and this disagreement depends on the various personalities inherent in the subjects, and therefore must be considered an empirical element. Thus, logic, as the science of thinking, that is, the activity of pure reason, could be built completely a priori; dialectics, for the most part, only a posteriori, after a practical understanding of the changes that pure thought undergoes, as a result of individual differences in the simultaneous thinking of two rational beings, and also after familiarization with the means that each of them uses in order to present his individual thoughts pure and objective. And this happens for the reason that it is characteristic of every person in joint thinking, that is, if he only learns, in the mutual exchange of views (except for historical conversations), that someone's thoughts on a given subject differ from his own, then he, instead of , in order to first check his own thought, he always prefers to make a mistake in someone else's thought. In other words, every person by nature wants to always be right; precisely what arises from this peculiarity of people is taught to us by one branch of science, which I would like to call "dialectics" or, to eliminate a possible misunderstanding, "eristic dialectics."
Thus, it is the science of man's desire to show that he is always right. "Eristic" is just a harsher name for this subject.
“Eristic dialectics”, therefore, is the art of arguing, but in such a way as to always remain right, that is, per fas et nefas. After all, objectively, one can be right and not seem so to others, and even very often to oneself; this happens when the opponent refutes our arguments and when this passes for the refutation of the entire controversial thesis, in proof of which there may be many other arguments that we have not given at the moment. In such cases, the enemy surrounds himself with a false light, it seems like a person who has a reason, but in fact he is all wrong. So, the truth of a controversial issue, taken objectively, and the power of rightness or reason in the eyes of the disputants and listeners are completely different things; eristic dialectics is entirely based on the latter.
If evil did not exist in the nature of people, if we were completely honest in every exchange of thoughts, then, of course, we would only try to achieve the truth and not pay attention to whose view is correct: whether it was originally expressed by ourselves, or by our opponent. We would treat this last view with complete indifference, or at least we would not attach such importance to it. Now, on the contrary, it is a matter of paramount importance. Our brain is very irritable in everything that concerns intellectual powers, and does not want to agree that what we said initially was wrong, and what the opponent said was right. With this circumstance in mind, every person should express only correct opinions, and therefore first think and then speak. But in addition to innate thinking, most people are still characterized by talkativeness and innate dishonesty. We talk about something without thinking at all, and then even if we soon notice that our opinion is false and without foundation, we still strive to prove, by all means, the completely opposite. Love for the truth, which in most cases was the only motive for setting the thesis, which seems to be true, completely gives way to love for one's own opinion; so that the truth thus seems to be a lie, and a lie the truth.
However, even this dishonesty, this persistent defense of the thesis, a falsehood, which we ourselves are perfectly aware of, has a sufficient basis. Very often, at the beginning of a conversation, we are deeply convinced of the justice of our judgment, but then the opponent's argument is so strong that it refutes and breaks us; if we immediately give up our belief, it is quite possible that we will later be convinced that we were right, but that our proof was erroneous. To defend our thesis, perhaps, there were strong arguments and evidence, but just to our misfortune, such a deliverer-argument did not occur to us. Thus, we create for ourselves a rule for arguing with arguments that are solid and proving the subject, and at the same time we admit that the opponent’s reasonableness is only apparent, and that during the argument we may accidentally fall into such an argument that either completely breaks the opponent’s argument, or in some way otherwise reveals the injustice of the opponent's opinion.
Arthur Schopenhauer
The art of winning arguments
Collection
« One of the essential obstacles to the success of the human race should be considered that people obey not the one who speaks smartest of all, but the one who speaks loudest»
Arthur Schopenhauer1788–1860
Philosopher of pessimism
Arthur Schopenhauer is a German irrationalist philosopher. Schopenhauer's teaching, the main provisions of which are set forth in The World as Will and Representation and other works, is often called "pessimistic philosophy." He considered human life meaningless, and the existing world - "the worst of all possible worlds."
1788 - Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the Prussian city of Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland). His parents were educated people, his father was engaged in trade, his mother kept a literary salon.
1799 - He entered the elite private gymnasium Runge.
1805 - At the insistence of his father, he began to work in a large Hamburg trading company.
1809 - After the death of his father and two years of training, he entered Faculty of Medicine Göttingen University. Later he moved to the Faculty of Philosophy.
1812 - The University of Jena awarded Schopenhauer in absentia the title of Doctor of Philosophy.
1820 - Began teaching at the University of Berlin with the rank of assistant professor. At the same time, Hegel worked there, and disagreements arose between the two philosophers.
1831 - Schopenhauer, fleeing from cholera, left Berlin and settled in Frankfurt am Main.
1840s - Became a member of one of the first animal rights organizations.
1860 - The philosopher died suddenly of pneumonia.
Foreword
The Art of Winning Disputes (Eristische Dialektik, oder Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten) is a disputation manual written in the 19th century and still relevant in the 21st century. In this work, Schopenhauer sets the goal of winning the dispute and gives specific recommendations for its consistent achievement. According to the author, in order to win the argument, it is not necessary to be factually right - you just need to use the right techniques. He cites over 30 so-called tricks, including substitution of the thesis, avoiding the subject of discussion in other areas, driving the enemy out of himself, preventing correct arguments if they can lead to unfavorable conclusions, and so on.
One of the very first and perhaps the most famous translation of Schopenhauer's work was made by N. L. d "Andre in 1900. Baroness Elizaveta Arturovna Bila, a well-known translator, writer and playwright, member of the Union of Dramatic and Musical Writers, worked under this pseudonym.
Since the ability to accept independent solutions necessary for a skilled polemist, this edition includes a chapter "On independent thinking" from the book "Parerga und Paralipomena", as well as another chapter of the same book, aphorisms and passages from other works of the philosopher, which will allow the reader to join the art of dressing one's own thought in short, precise and witty form, in which Arthur Schopenhauer had no equal.
The art of winning arguments
Eristic
The words "logic" and "dialectic" were already used in antiquity and were considered synonyms, although the verbs λογιζεσεθαι (discuss, think, think) and διαλεγεσθαι (talk) reflect two completely different concepts.
A similar use of these expressions existed in the Middle Ages and even occurs sometimes to this day. In recent times the word "dialectics" has been used by some scholars, especially Kant, in a negative sense; they called it "the sophistical way of debating," and for this reason put the word "logic" higher, as a more innocent expression of this concept. As a matter of fact, these two words have exactly the same meaning, so in recent years they have again often been looked at as synonymous expressions.
This state of affairs somewhat confuses me and does not give me the opportunity, as I would like, to shade and separate these two sciences: logic and dialectics. In my opinion, logic can be given the following definition: “the science of the laws of thinking or the ways of the mind’s activity” (from the verb to ponder, discuss, which in turn comes from the word intelligence or word); dialectics, using this expression in the modern sense, is "the art of debating and arguing or talking." Every conversation is based on the presentation of facts or views, that is, once it is historical, another time it analyzes or considers something. Hence it is obvious that the subject of logic is given in its entirety. a priori without any admixture of anything historical or that the general laws of thought enter into the field of this science, to which every mind obeys at the moment when it is left to itself, when nothing interferes with it, therefore, during the period of solitary thinking of a rational being, which nothing confuse. Dialectics, on the contrary, considers the simultaneous activity of two rational beings who think at the same time, from which, of course, a dispute arises, that is, a spiritual struggle. Both beings have pure reason, and therefore they should agree with each other; in fact, there is no such agreement, and this disagreement depends on the various personalities inherent in the subjects, and therefore must be considered an empirical element. Thus, logic, as the science of thinking, that is, the activity of pure reason, could be built completely a priori; dialectics, for the most part - only a posteriori, after a practical understanding of the changes that pure thought undergoes as a result of individual differences in the simultaneous thinking of two rational beings, and also after familiarization with the means that each of them uses in order to present his individual thoughts pure and objective. And this happens for the reason that the following is characteristic of every person in joint thinking: as soon as he learns in a mutual exchange of views (except for historical conversations) that someone else's thoughts on a given subject differ from his own, then he, instead of first of all to check his own thought, he always prefers to make a mistake in someone else's thought. In other words, every person by nature wants to always be right; precisely what arises from this peculiarity of people is taught to us by one branch of science, which I would like to call "dialectics" or, to eliminate a possible misunderstanding, "eristic dialectics."
Thus, it is the science of man's desire to show that he is always right. "Eristic" is just a harsher name for this subject.
“Eristic dialectics”, therefore, is the art of arguing, but in such a way as to always remain right, that is, by all truths and lies. After all, one can be objectively right, but not seem so to another, and even very often to oneself; this happens when the opponent refutes our arguments and when this passes for the refutation of the entire controversial thesis, in proof of which there may be many other arguments that we have not given at the moment. In such cases, the enemy surrounds himself with a false light, it seems like a person who has a reason, but in fact he is all wrong. So, the truth of a controversial issue, taken objectively, and the power of rightness or reason in the eyes of the disputants and listeners are completely different things; eristic dialectics is entirely based on the latter. If evil did not exist in the nature of people, if we were perfectly honest in every exchange of thoughts, then, of course, we would only try to achieve the truth and not pay attention to whose view is right: whether originally expressed by ourselves, or ours. adversary. We would treat this last view with complete indifference, or at least we would not attach such importance to it. In fact, it is, on the contrary, a thing of paramount importance. Our brain is very irritable in everything that concerns intellectual powers, and does not want to agree that what we said at the beginning was wrong, and what the opponent said was right. With this circumstance in mind, every person should express only correct opinions, and therefore first think and then speak. But in addition to innate thinking, most people are still characterized by talkativeness and innate dishonesty. We talk about something without thinking at all, and then, even if we soon notice that our opinion is false and without foundation, we still strive to prove, by all means, the completely opposite. Love for truth, which in most cases was the only motive for setting up a thesis that seems true, completely gives way to love for one's own opinion; so that the truth thus begins to appear to be a lie, and a lie to be the truth.
Every person wants to be right. Hardly anyone likes to be defeated in an argument. And sometimes the truth is not so important as the principle of being right. So people can go different kind tricks to convince the opponent that you are right. In The Art of Winning Arguments, Arthur Schopenhauer shares his thoughts on this topic and gives advice. This guide to disputes was written in the 19th century and is still in demand today.
Schopenhauer's philosophy seems to many to be depressing, irrational, and some of his ideas even seem absurd to some, but in this book, for sure, you can find a lot of interesting things. Moreover, in a dispute, rational arguments are far from always convincing. Schopenhauer gives more than thirty tricks that will help win the argument. Moreover, he says that for this victory it is not at all necessary to be truly right. You only need to use right tricks, be consistent and be able to convince. With this book, it will be clear what and when to say in order to win disputes. And it does not matter whether the opponent is very smart or, conversely, very stupid. For everyone there are arguments and tricks.
The book also includes aphorisms and excerpts from other works of the author. There is a chapter on the mind of a person, the information that he fills his memory with, and how this affects his imagination and thinking. The book will be useful to everyone who studies at the faculties of the humanities, as well as to those who want to get acquainted with the most important works of world philosophy and culture.
The work was published in 1900 by the publishing house: Eksmo. The book is part of the "Great Ideas" series. On our website you can download the book "The Art of Winning Disputes" in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format or read online. Here, before reading, you can also refer to the reviews of readers who are already familiar with the book, and find out their opinion. In the online store of our partner you can buy and read the book in paper form.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher. In his main work, The World as Will and Representation, he developed an original idealistic doctrine.
Arthur Schopenhauer was one of the smartest men of his time. He wrote not only works on academic philosophy, but also hundreds of life aphorisms. According to contemporaries, in conversations he shone with inimitable resourcefulness. Schopenhauer liked to start arguments and always emerged victorious from them.
Essence of the dispute
Although Schopenhauer mainly wrote about fundamental philosophical problems, he was also occupied with everyday questions of a practical nature. So, in the work "Eristics, or the Art of Winning Disputes", he carefully studies the dispute process and gives many cunning tricks, the correct use of which greatly increases the chances of winning.
But what is meant by a dispute and victory in it? Schopenhauer immediately separates the field of research aimed at obtaining objective knowledge from the field of ordinary verbal debate. Winning the argument does not mean winning the truth. In an argument, you can defend a completely wrong point of view, but if your arguments sound convincing, you can easily win.
Any dispute boils down to a refutation of the opponent's thesis. There are two ways to destroy the thesis: point out its inconsistency with the real state of affairs or other statements of the opponent.
Tricks to help you win an argument
1. Include the opponent's statements in a larger context that contradicts the statement.
A: "Donald Trump's victory will do us a lot of good."
B: “No, because Trump is a successful politician. But everyone knows that only false scoundrels achieve success in politics. What benefit can be expected from such a person?
Opponent B expanded the concept of "president" to the concept of "politician", in which he included a sign of dishonesty.
2. Use the same word with different meanings
A: "I won't work because work makes me unhappy."
B: “A man must make good money and be successful. You are a man, so go to the office."
Opponent B endowed the concept of "man" with the meaning he needed and applied it to this case. He replaced the word "man" with social expectations from a man.
3. Use relative judgments as absolutes
A: “I don’t like uneducated people. I like rock musicians."
B: "But a lot of uneducated people make good rock music."
Opponent B tried to use a private feature as an absolute one. He should answer like this: “I don’t like uneducated people, because there is nothing to talk about with them. And I love rock musicians on the basis of my love for this musical genre. There is no contradiction here."
4. Ask as many questions as possible to confuse your opponent
And if you defend your point of view, argue your position as quickly as possible.
The enemy will concentrate on your speech, so he will not have time to evaluate the correctness of logical conclusions.
5. Try to annoy your opponent
Being angry, he will not be able to reason correctly.
6. Mask the true purpose of your questions
B: “So coffee is good?”
B: "But numerous studies say that coffee is injurious to health."
As a result, opponent B disputes the thesis "coffee is good" rather than the original statement "it's worth drinking coffee in the morning."
14. Angry the enemy
If any of your arguments angers the opponent, repeat it as often as possible.
15. Use humor
If the knowledge of the listeners about the subject of the dispute is small, it is possible to present the correct conclusion of the opponent in an absurd light with the help of jokes. For example:
A: “Friends, Charles Darwin claims that man descended from apes. To be honest, looking at the shape of Charles's skull, the abundance of vegetation on his face and the wretchedness of the products of his thinking, it is difficult to deny him such ancestors. But we are people!”
16. Reference famous people
Even if you prove that the Earth is the center of the world, your team has such great minds as Plato, Pythagoras, Confucius, King Solomon. Emphatically remind that all these people put the Earth in the center. Perhaps the thought will slip through your opponent’s head: “Hmm, but there is something in this position”
17. In a difficult situation, admit your incompetence.
For example: “What you say is inaccessible to my weak mind. You may be right, but I am a stupid layman and do not understand this, therefore I refuse to express any opinion. This trick will work if you have more authority than your opponent.
18. Reduce the opponent's thesis to some despised position
You need to exclaim: “Darling, you are a racist!”, “Yes, you draw conclusions like fortunetellers and astrologers.”
19. If the opponent tries to change the topic, in no case do not let him
When you groped weakness opponent, keep hitting him.
20. Confuse and confuse the enemy with a meaningless set of words and phrases
The main thing is to keep a serious face.
We have given the most interesting tricks that Schopenhauer wrote about. You can find more tips in his book. Their knowledge is useful not only for attacks, but also for self-defense, because many of the techniques are used by people intuitively.
